Limiting Heathrow's capacity is pointless

The Observer suggests that building a runway at Heathrow would sabotage the UK's position in the fight against climate change ('There is no case for Heathrow's third runway', Leader, last week). The authoritative Stern Review suggested that limiting airport capacity is an inefficient way of regulating demand and leads to more congestion for aircraft on the ground and in the air, needlessly polluting the atmosphere.

A more sensible approach is to encourage global emissions trading. This will see carbon emissions capped in line with international reduction targets. The market will set the price of carbon permits and polluting industries must pay to breach the pre-set limits. Placing the right cost on carbon will provide the incentive for industry to develop low-carbon technology and reduce emissions over the long term, allowing progressive economies to develop industry and fuel competitiveness, while protecting ambitious climate targets.Colin MatthewsChief Executive BAA, Heathrow

In your forthright editorial, you rightly indicate that our cars, homes, factories and power plants will all have to become carbon neutral just to accommodate the aviation industry's desire for unbridled expansion. But you failed to include wholesalers, retailers, distributors and consumers in your list of those who must share the burden of carbon reduction.

Overconsumption is a major driver of global warming, yet boosting consumption is seen as the key to getting on top of current economic difficulties.John RankenCambridge

I work on emissions reduction projects internationally. This leaves me in somewhat of a dilemma. I have travelled within four continents this year helping to set up and finance projects and have created well in excess of 50 tonnes of carbon dioxide doing so. I am also no stranger to Heathrow airport, or the potential benefits of a third runway.

However, I choose to hold a long-term view of this planet. I accept that I may have to fly indirect or at less convenient times from Heathrow, or not fly at all when it is not essential. I am willing to pay more for renewable energy and high-speed rail. There are shortcomings in all the current solutions to climate change, but just as this is no reason to abandon them, it is no reason to ignore the incompatibility of aviation with our climate change targets. In light of this, it is not difficult to conclude that there is no case for Heathrow's third runway.Oliver BlakemanEco PositiveLondon

I'm pleased The Observer has come out in opposition to a third runway at Heathrow. The plans are utterly at odds with commitments to reduce emissions in the long-term. The argument that large-scale investment is good for the economy is bogus. Investing in public transport, including long-distance rail, would be much better than money for airports (or indeed motorways, as announced in the pre-Budget report).Alex SnowdonTyne and Wear

Aircraft designers and manufacturers are looking at different ways to significantly reduce fuel consumption. One of these is to use lighter materials and to implement higher power-to-weight ratios in engine technology. The parallel reduction in emissions that this will give from aircraft will result in them being more environmentally friendly, reducing carbon footprints and enhancing their overall appeal. There is a fundamental necessity of balancing our books so far as overall emissions are concerned and there can be little doubt that the aircraft industry and engineers will play their part in taking this on board. Professor WM BanksDepartment of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of Strathclyde

Write to us

• Letters, which may be edited, should include a full name and postal address and be sent to: Letters to the Editor, The Observer, Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1 9GU (to be received by noon Thursday). Fax: 020 7837 7817. Email: letters@observer.co.uk (please insert Letters to the Editor in subject ﬁeld).